Re: Gospel of Thomas not Gnostic???

Reply to Hey Market s post #5627 >>>Seeing the Gospel of Thomas as Gnostic may be premature, but to see it as anything less than

Message 1 of 1
, Mar 8, 2002

0 Attachment

Reply to Hey Market's post
#5627<br><br><br><br><br>>>>Seeing the Gospel of Thomas as Gnostic may be premature,
but to see it as anything less than gnostic is
immature.<<<<br><br>And I would ask what is the definition of "gnostic"?
Or should I say by whose definition? Again, I see
your point in utilizing the capital letters and lower
case letter. If I am to interpret as you saying "G"
"Gnostics" as a certain religious phenomenon in the 2nd
century and "g" "gnostics" as any group that process
"Gnosis" then my statement is in agreement with you. It is
just that I was not using that convention but instead
to use my own "esoteric" adaptionalists. If that is
the sole problem, them we just have a differing
nomenclature.<br><br>>>>To be sure, there is no absolute proof that the
Gospel of Thomas was Gnostic (though there are strong
arguments). <<<<br><br>Again, you statement is valid
if we see through "Gnostic" eyes. One thing I forgot
to mention is that because the GTh was found with
other "Gnostic" document, it could went to heavy
redaction by a Gnostic
scribe<br>.<br>>>>Nonetheless, it is undeniably gnostic, which is all that
matters to Gnostics.<<< <br><br>The point here
is that I am seeing it from the etic point of view.
If we take it emic then of course the GTh is Gnostic
but then so is the Gospel of John, some Pauline
Epistles and Acts of Thomas etc... If we are to take the
origin of Gnosticism/Christianity as such that Gnosis is
at the core then we must more or less see all the
scriptures, save the one that not used by Gnostics and those
that have obvious "orthodox" polemic style such as the
first and second Timothy, as pre-Gnostic in
origin.<br><br>On related issue, if we are to use this criteria
then can we also state that the GTh is a Manichaean
writing? There is circumstantial evidence that points
toward Manichaeans using the GTh. It is not clear
whether this GTh is the same GTh as one found in the Nag
Hammadi but it is plausible that Manichaeans used the GTh
with heavy Manichaean redaction. I wonder if we will
say the GTh is a Manichaean writing if we discovered
it NOT in Nag Hammadi but Tufun?

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.